Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Lal And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 August, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16981 of 2013
Date of Decision : August 06, 2013
Bhajan Lal and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana.
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
Mr.S.S.Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2] Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to learned State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. 3] In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.
4] The petitioners are residents of village Faijjupur Majra Neemka, Tehsil and District Faridabad. While seeking quashing of the notifications dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure P-3) and 6.2.2009 (Annexure P-5) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, as well as the Award dated 4.2.2011 Kumar Mohinder 2013.08.14 15:48 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.16981 of 2013 [2] (Annexure P-16), in essence they seek a mandamus for the release of constructed portion of their property which has been acquired vide the impugned acquisition process. 5] Relying upon the report (Annexure P-11) of the Land Acquisition Collector on consideration of their objections and submitted under Section 5A of the Act, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the structures were built up by them much before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In addition, certain photographs have also been placed on record which do suggest that the houses of the petitioners are not newly constructed.
6] The petitioners also rely upon the orders dated 18.7.2011 passed in CWP No.11089 of 2011 (Jai Pal and others versus State of Haryana and others) and 16.07.2013 passed in CWP No.9160 of 2013 (Beer Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others (Annexures P-20 & P-24, respectively), in relation to the same acquisition and contend that the existing structures deserve to be exempted in terms of the Government Policy dated 26.10.2007. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patasi Devi versus State of Haryana and others, (2012) 9 SCC 503. The petitioners allege discrimination in relation to the release of their land and have placed on record Licence Nos.58 of 2011 and 12 of 2012 issued in favour of private builders/developers after passing of the award and in respect of the land comprising same acquisition. The petitioners have in this regard represented the Competent Authority also. 7] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the factors like that: (i) in the objections Kumar Mohinder 2013.08.14 15:48 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.16981 of 2013 [2] under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners specifically averred that they have built-up residential houses on a part of the acquired land; (ii) in the report under Section 5-A of the Act, the factum of existing structures is duly reported; (iii) the State Government formulated a policy dated 26.10.2007, as amended/modified subsequently, whereunder the existing structures deserve to be exempted from acquisition; (iv) the aforesaid policy has to be applied uniformly as ruled by the Apex Court in Patasi Devi's case (supra); (v) coupled with the facts that the influential persons are still getting their lands released before or after passing of the award, we find no rhyme or reason for the respondents not to exempt the existing structures alongwith some open space of the petitioners from acquisition.
8] We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioners regarding exemption of their existing structures from acquisition and pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, and the Government Policy dated 26.10.2007, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. 9] Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo.
Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
August 06, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.08.14 15:48
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh